Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Mar 2013 10:35 UTC
Legal "Apple vs. Samsung initially ended with a billion-dollar verdict in favor of Apple, but there have been plenty of wrinkles since. This week brought about another, as Nokia filed an amicus brief on behalf of Apple, Inc. in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the brief filed Monday, Nokia asked the court to permit permanent injunctions on the sale of Samsung phones that were found to infringe Apple's patents." In the meantime, the latest comScore figures for the US show that Windows Phone's market share actually declined during the launch of Windows Phone 8. It's pretty clear that, combined with the disappointing quarterly results for Nokia, the company is setting itself up for the future. In this future, Nokia's patent portfolio is worth more than their actual phone business, and as such, Nokia can't do anything but support Apple in this case, else the value of their portfolio goes down.
Thread beginning with comment 554523
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: injunctions for what?
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 19:01 UTC in reply to "injunctions for what?"
Member since:

Wrong. Read up on patent case law in the US.

Irreparable harm is caused to Apple because patents have a finite lifespan, and every second that Samsung is allowed to continue to infringe is time Apple will never get back.

This comes with the caveat that its at the Judge's discretion, and this has usually worked well. Judge's have been very fair about balancing monetary damages vs injunctive relief.

The issue at hand is that after Samsung has been found by the Jury to infringe something like a dozen patents, many of them willfully, and across a span of many devices, the Judge is still reluctant to grant an exclusion order.

This is radical and unprecedented, ESPECIALLY for a non preliminary request, and why Nokia filed its amicus brief.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: injunctions for what?
by TechGeek on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:25 in reply to "RE: injunctions for what?"
TechGeek Member since:

The reason I gave WAS based on case law. Its the exact reason the judge gave, based on case law. Look it up.

Also: Any other actions against any other manufacturer mean jack shit in this case. Your not even allowed to bring it up in the court case.

Nelson, try the Googles. A *very* quick look shows this from Wikipedia:

"Nevertheless, the irreparable injury rule was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in eBay v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006), a case in which the Court announced a test for injunctive relief that required, among other things, that the plaintiff prove "that it has suffered an irreparable injury"."

Edited 2013-03-07 22:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: injunctions for what?
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 22:48 in reply to "RE[2]: injunctions for what?"
Nelson Member since:

Apple has proven irreparable harm. Apple has had a dozen of its patents infringed across a shitload of Samsung products. Willfully so, in fact.

If this doesn't pass the litmus test for an injunction, nothing does. The Judge is clearly making a ruling that is inconsistent with how the test has been applied in the past.

Reply Parent Score: 3